Filed: Sep. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7197 In Re: ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-1192-AM) Submitted: September 4, 2002 Decided: September 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Cameron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron, a Virginia inmate,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7197 In Re: ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-1192-AM) Submitted: September 4, 2002 Decided: September 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Cameron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron, a Virginia inmate, p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7197 In Re: ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-1192-AM) Submitted: September 4, 2002 Decided: September 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Cameron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron, a Virginia inmate, petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the clerk of the district court in which his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) habeas action is pending to file his response to the state’s motion to dismiss. Our review of the docket sheet in that action reveals Cameron’s responsive pleading was received by the district court and filed no later than July 8, 2002. Accordingly, although we grant Cameron leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the mandamus petition as moot, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 2
